Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation. You can read Dan's recent work here

Labour would be perfectly placed to win the election – if it were in 2017

When I first saw the headline, my initial reaction was “another one?” By my count, we’re currently on Labour’s fourth. First there was the Summer Offensive on Health, which Ed Miliband launched at PMQs a couple of weeks ago. Then there was last week’s Summer Offensive on Ed, when he lead a bold assault on his own image. Then on Monday Yvette Cooper launched the Summer Offensive on Everything, with a policy announcement on domestic violence, quickly followed up with an attack by Andy Burnham on health (again), and Ed Balls on the Government’s tax policy.

And now, apparently, we’ve got the Summer Offensive on The Choice. According to Rowena Mason, “The structure is deliberate and was dreamed up in a 'brainstorming session' overseen by Douglas Alexander, the party's election coordinator, according to party sources. At this meeting it was settled that the theme of the summer would be 'the choice' – a binary decision facing voters over which man will be PM next year.”

If I’m honest, I don’t see how Labour’s strategy could look less binary. Health, Ed, Domestic Violence, the NHS, Tax. Exactly what is the narrative here? Is Labour really going to claim that the choice at the next election will be between Prime Minister Cameron, who will let your husband or boyfriend assault you, and Prime Minister Miliband, who won’t?

But fortunately, if you read a little further into Rowena’s copy, the truth finally emerges. "We're pleased with how it's gone so far," one Labour aide said. "It's been three shadow ministers on the Today programme in three days. It's now about keeping up the momentum."

In truth there is no grand strategy behind Labour’s summer manoeuvres. It’s basically about getting Today programme notches on the shadow cabinet’s gunbelt, and filling column inches during the silly season.

And there’s not necessarily anything wrong with. When I used to work for Labour we'd always try to ensure a “vacuum” didn’t develop whenever the House had risen. Our rationale was that the absence of government business helped level the playing field for us as an opposition. It provided a good opportunity to gain greater prominence for second-tier stories or issues, and helped keep ministers off balance. And it also allowed junior shadow ministers to raise their profiles and gain some important front-line media experience and exposure.

Or at least that’s what we did in the middle of the parliament. The “summer offensive” was basically a key part of our midterm strategy.

But by the time we got close to the election, things had changed. Everything was much more tightly managed. The priority was no longer to occupy space or generate profile, but to reinforce the handful of key messages that would from the basis of the election campaign. More importantly, it was to demonstrate that we were now ready to make the transition from opposition to government. It was around this time Labour launched its “shadow manifesto”, essentially an expanded version of the famous pledge card.

But that’s not what Labour is currently doing. Or, if it is what Labour’s doing, it clearly isn’t working.

The attempt to reframe Miliband has – predictably – proved a disaster. The past week has been dominated by a debate over whether Miliband has a terminal image problem, a disastrous image problem, or merely a very bad image problem.

Yvette Cooper’s domestic violence announcement didn’t survive contact with John Humphrys. And the attack on tax has degenerated into a desperate effort by the Labour press office to shoot down David Cameron’s kite-flying over an increase in thresholds. In other words, Labour is still stuck on a midterm footing.

Take Miliband’s image relaunch. Had he delivered that speech at any point during the first six months of his leadership – the period during which the window for a new leader to define themselves remains open – it might have struck a chord. It might also have neutralised some of the presentational criticism he now faces. He could even have delivered it in that period immediately after he’d forced David Cameron to announce an inquiry into phone hacking. In that context, his claim to be a leader of substance might have resonated. But instead, he waited four years to do it. And in doing so, waited four years too long.

Last week, at the meeting of Labour’s policy forum, the party’s offer on spending and the size of the state was finally knocked into some sort of coherent shape. But again, it was far too late. The image of Labour spokesmen and women ritualistically opposing every Tory cut while simultaneously opening the chequebook to every worthy interest group was embedded long ago.

In the immediate aftermath of the European elections, the shadow cabinet and Labour backbenchers suddenly came alive to the threat posed by their policy stances in areas like immigration, Europe and welfare. Again, too late.

It can take years to generate significant shifts in attitude towards a political party. Labour’s process of modernisation took a decade to reach completion. And David Cameron’s faltering modernisation of the Tory party is still only half-finished.

Labour was quite effective in using the parliamentary midterm to land blows on the Government. The impression of the Tories as arrogant and aloof was successfully embedded. But Labour also needed to be using that period to put down the positive building blocks on policy, leadership and a prospectus for government. And as the current “summer offensive” – in reality a series of uncoordinated small unit actions – is demonstrating, those blocks were never delivered.

Labour is effectively 24 months behind the political curve. If the general election was scheduled for May 2017, Miliband might be in with a fighting chance. But sadly for him, he hasn’t got three years. He’s got 10 months. And 10 months just isn’t enough.